Posts Tagged ‘immigration’

Some quick hits, from a couple of very good political columnists – not because I have any poignant observation that will illuminate their meaning, but because I admire the way these short paragraphs sum up a complex or controversial point and I didn’t want to forget how they said it.

 “Dismantling America – Part II”, Thomas Sowell, 8/18/10:

Not since the Norman conquerors of England published their laws in French, for an English-speaking nation, centuries ago, has there been such contempt for the people’s right to know what laws were being imposed on them.

Dismantling America – Part III”, Thomas Sowell, 8/19/10:

Threatening to launch nuclear retaliation against the people of Iran will not deter them. They have already shown how little they care about the people of Iran and how much they care about their fanatical beliefs and hate-filled agendas.


Sometimes small things can give you a better clue than large things. A recent editorial in Investor’s Business Daily pointed out that hundreds of captured illegal aliens from terrorist-sponsoring nations were released on their own recognizance within the United States. Are these the actions of an administration that is serious about the national security of the American people?

Dismantling America – Part IV“, Thomas Sowell, 8/20/10:

President Barack Obama said that the Court’s decision [on the first amendment rights of corporations] “will open the floodgates for special interests”– as if all you have to do to take away people’s free speech rights is call them a special interest.

… The history of this country is taught in many schools and colleges as the history of grievances and victimhood, often with the mantra of “race, class and gender.” Television and the movies often do the same.

When there are not enough current grievances for them, they mine the past for grievances and call it history. Sins and shortcomings common to the human race around the world are spoken of as failures of “our society.” But American achievements get far less attention– and sometimes none at all.

…Why? Partly, if not mostly, it is because that is the vogue. It shows you are “with it” when you reject your own country and exalt other countries.

Islamophobia? Not Really”, Jonah Goldberg, 8/25/10:

In 2001, there were twice as many anti-Jewish incidents as there were anti-Muslim, according to the FBI. In 2002 and pretty much every year since, anti-Jewish incidents have outstripped anti-Muslim incidents by at least 6 to 1. Why aren’t we talking about the anti-Jewish climate in America?

Because there isn’t one. And there isn’t an anti-Muslim climate either. Yes, there’s a lot of heated rhetoric on the Internet. Absolutely, some Americans don’t like Muslims. But if you watch TV or movies, or read, say, the op-ed page of the New York Times — never mind left-wing blogs — you’ll hear much more open bigotry toward evangelical Christians (in blogspeak, the “Taliban wing of the Republican Party”) than you will toward Muslims.


And when Muslim fanatics kill Americans — after, say, the Fort Hood slaughter — a reflexive response from the Obama administration is to fret over an anti-Islamic backlash.

Obama and Co. automatically proclaim that such orchestrated terrorist attacks are “isolated” events. But when it comes to mainstream Americans, veterans, ObamaCare opponents or (shudder) tea partiers, there’s no generalization too broad or too insulting for the left.

It’s fine to avoid negative stereotypes of Muslims, but why the rush to embrace them when it comes to Americans?

Nicely said, fellas.


This article is part of a five-part series. See Part 1 here.

How Immigration Used to Work

I am shocked and embarrassed to note that I never wrapped up what was turning into a fairly sharp series of blog articles. So, it seems that before I begin contributing again to this blog in the New Year, I need to take care of some housekeeping: Part 5 – How Immigration Used to Work.

Levin asserts that, contrary to the arguments posed by the left, the immigrant of the twenty-first century is cut from a different cloth. His motives and ambitions are not the same. The left insists that to restrict the immigrant’s entry is entirely racist, and is a denigration of America’s diverse heritage. Further, that America is dependent on its immigrant population, and the natural born Americans are inferior in virtue and shallower in faith.

Our “melting pot” was indeed a tribute to massive and diverse immigration. What was different about those primarily European immigrants? There are many differences, a few majors being: historically, these immigrants were predominantly skilled laborers; they were leaving their homeland to become fully American, throwing off any allegiance to their former nation; they arrived on our shores expecting to put themselves fully and completely under the rule of law, and in return gain the full protections outlined in the Constitution. This has changed in outrageous ways: Juan Hernandez, in an ABC interview in 2001 while serving as the Hispanic outreach director for the Mexican president, said, “I want the third generation, the seventh generation, I want them all to think ‘Mexico first.’”

Assimilation is always a touchy subject, because in this PC-charged age to advocate assimilation is to disparage the immigrant’s culture and race. But why has assimilation, which once seemed to occur naturally, become an odd exception? Levin’s answer is that where previous waves of immigration had easily defined starts and ends, “the current influx is not a wave but an ongoing tsunami that began more than forty years ago and… is likely to continue in the decades ahead.” Our country has no time to absorb the current residents before more follow on their heels.

Going back to the PC idea that cultural purism is an admirable and morally superior trait in our immigrants, much of that stems from the idea that there is no “pure American” culture of which they could become a part, or that American culture is inferior to those of other nations and is therefore not worthy of protection. Historically, however, becoming an American had a larger meaning beyond the location of your home; when people became Americans, it was an identifier that encompassed all the rights and privileges spelled out in our founding documents. It raised them up to a higher status than they held in their homelands. This is still the case today – but once here, they are treated as if retaining the purity of their original culture is of highest import and will achieve the same results for America as the melting pot of old.

Levin taught me something about the 14th Amendment and a common misinterpretation of it – namely, that any child born within the borders of the US, regardless of the nationality of the child’s parents, is automatically a US citizen. Sometimes the things you assume to be fact turn out to be based on nothing more than movie lore, I guess. Turns out that the purpose of this amendment was to grant citizenship to the emancipated slaves. “All persons, born or naturalized in the United States,” says the Amendment, “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.” Under any logical definition, an illegal alien is not subject to the jurisdiction of the US. If you grant citizenship to any baby born here, children of foreign diplomats would become US citizens – but they don’t, because that’s not how it works.

Surprising statistics of this chapter (some taken from a 2004 estimate by the Pew Hispanic Center):
* 1 in 8 US residents is an immigrant, and 1/3 of them are here illegally
* 9% of Mexico’s population was living in the US
* 57% of all illegal immigrants are Mexican
* 55% of all Mexicans living in the US are here illegally

The left is determined to push us towards a one-world government. The recent climate conference in Copenhagen was evidence of that, as well as the relationship President Obama is fomenting with the UN. By destroying the concepts we hold about immigration and transforming the laws to align with them, they erode the sovereignty of our country. (I would be interested to see how many registered voters can tell you why US sovereignty is still important.) Hopefully there can be a real debate on immigration that doesn’t degenerate into claims of racism, xenophobia, bigotry and prejudice. I fear that as long as the subject remains on a political stage, it can’t make any progress at all.

Part 1: World Opinion and American Exceptionalism
Part 2: Economic Intervention
Part 3: The Linguistic Psy-War Tactics of Liberals
Part 4: Overpopulation and the Green Movement